6 meals v.s. 3 big meals

THE_CLOCK

There are different opinions on the matter. 6 meals a day spaces out nutrients more evenly and keeps metabolism up. However, it supposedly weakens overall insulin response and since the body is constantly fed, the body has no need to burn fat for energy.

My question is this. What do you follow and what results have you seen. Have you tried both strategies? Which worked best?

If I go to 3 meals, do I just merge two meals together?

FitPhillygirl

Eating 6 meals a day does not keep your metabolism up any more than if you ate 2 or 3 times a day. I eat 6 times a day for medical reasons. There is no right or wrong when it comes to how many times a day to eat. Just fuel your body with the amount of calories that it needs each day.....

malibu927

It's all personal preference. I do three meals, a possible snack, and dessert, which is what I've been brought up to eat (though the regular dessert came once I hit adulthood).

THE_CLOCK

It is personal preference. But my personal preference is the strategy that will benefit me the most. Mmmmmm.....dessert!

usmcmp

THE_CLOCK wrote: »

There are different opinions on the matter. 6 meals a day spaces out nutrients more evenly and keeps metabolism up. However, it supposedly weakens overall insulin response and since the body is constantly fed, the body has no need to burn fat for energy.

My question is this. What do you follow and what results have you seen. Have you tried both strategies? Which worked best?

If I go to 3 meals, do I just merge two meals together?

The "metabolic boost" you get from eating meals is the Thermic Effect of Food and is directly proportionate to the amount of calories and macro break down that you eat.

This means 3 meals is 3 very large spikes. 6 meals is 6 smaller spikes. If you don't have a medical condition in which you need to worry about blood sugar or insulin eating should be a personal preference. Studies have shown a slight increase in metabolism between 14-16 hours in the fasted state. Insulin sensitivity can be improved slightly with carb cycling, not with meal timing.

rileysowner

THE_CLOCK wrote: »

There are different opinions on the matter. 6 meals a day spaces out nutrients more evenly and keeps metabolism up. However, it supposedly weakens overall insulin response and since the body is constantly fed, the body has no need to burn fat for energy.

My question is this. What do you follow and what results have you seen. Have you tried both strategies? Which worked best?

If I go to 3 meals, do I just merge two meals together?

There may be different opinions, but the actual research shows that there is no change to the overall metabolism for the day connected to meal frequency. The only one who have differing opinions are those who have not kept up with the science. The science is pretty much in completely agreement on that, although there may be other things that will come up in future study.

With the best of information we have now, the take away is this, for weight loss eat at whatever pattern will help you to continue to comply with your calorie goals. For some that is a bunch of small meals. For others is it few larger meals. The weight loss from either will be the same as long as calorie intake is the same.

THE_CLOCK

O.k. So, lets assume that calorie goals will be met and metabolism will be equal with either choice. What about the research concerning insulin desensitization with frequent meals?

usmcmp

THE_CLOCK wrote: »

O.k. So, lets assume that calorie goals will be met and metabolism will be equal with either choice. What about the research concerning insulin desensitization with frequent meals?

Do you have a medical issue? If not then I haven't seen any research showing that, at least not research where the subject were fed balanced macros.

THE_CLOCK

No medical issues concerning insulin. I was just reading some articles and am trying to figure it out. I eat 6 a day. Clean. But there are many who say that if you do not have a medical issue to eat 3 or 4 big meals. Mostly because of insulin spikes, avoid insulin desensitization, let the body use stored fat.....

usmcmp, you are ripped up, what do you do?

usmcmp

THE_CLOCK wrote: »

No medical issues concerning insulin. I was just reading some articles and am trying to figure it out. I eat 6 a day. Clean. But there are many who say that if you do not have a medical issue to eat 3 or 4 big meals. Mostly because of insulin spikes, avoid insulin desensitization, let the body use stored fat.....

usmcmp, you are ripped up, what do you do?

I eat when I'm hungry. Sometimes that is 3 meals, usually it's 5 to 8 "meals". Sometimes it's cake, sometimes it's chicken and vegetables, sometimes it's a snack cake. I hit appropriate macros and I lift 4 days per week. Some days it's lots of protein, fruits and vegetables. Some days there's significant amounts of sweets.

SideSteel

THE_CLOCK wrote: »

No medical issues concerning insulin. I was just reading some articles and am trying to figure it out. I eat 6 a day. Clean. But there are many who say that if you do not have a medical issue to eat 3 or 4 big meals. Mostly because of insulin spikes, avoid insulin desensitization, let the body use stored fat.....

usmcmp, you are ripped up, what do you do?

You should go with whatever improves your ability to adhere to your diet. Losing fat and maintaining a reasonable bodyweight will improve insulin sensitivity as will exercise.

GaleHawkins

In my case it seems to depend on my macro. Currently I am only eating twice a day because that is when I get hungry.

The big downside health wise of eating six times for some is that it tends to keep one's blood glucose level elevated over 100 more hours of the day.

I agree going with whatever improves one's ability to stick with one's successful diet.

@THE_CLOCK welcome to the MFP forums and the best to your success.

THE_CLOCK

It is such a learning process. SideSteel, you food diary rocks! So basically, only deficit matters, the rest is arbitrary....

THE_CLOCK

Thanks Gale. I recently deleted my old account to focus only on the fitness. I just saw my posts at 6. LOL! It used to be over 10,000. Yeah starting over, good times.

SideSteel

THE_CLOCK wrote: »

It is such a learning process. SideSteel, you food diary rocks! So basically, only deficit matters, the rest is arbitrary....

LOL I haven't logged my food in months.

I wouldn't say that calories are all that matters.

But I WOULD say that calories in/out is entirely valid and it's the main determinant in changes in energy storage (and stored energy is basically muscle/fat/glycogen).

It can become quite easy to focus on things that are either unimportant or conditionally important such that you lose sight of the things that are VERY important.

Diet adherence and energy balance are very important.

And I'm willing to bet that maintaining a reasonable body-weight will do more for insulin sensitivity than a specific meal frequency will. I'm willing to be proven wrong on that bet.

SideSteel

Also, I'm not at all convinced that frequent feeding will blunt whole body fat oxidation. If you are consuming fewer calories than you burn over time, you are going to oxidize more fat than you will store. This will happen regardless of the meal pattern.

THE_CLOCK

That makes sense. Thank you for the enlightenment. I suppose I will need to experiment a little.

kommodevaran

First part - may have some merit, but for all practical purposes, *kitten*.

Second part - neither; I eat 4 meals. Have tried 3 and 6, but 4 definitely works best for me.

Third part - do whatever you like. Most people prefer "breakfast, lunch, dinner", but much out of habit and tradition, there are few set rules you have to follow.

Michael190lbs

I had an 800 calorie breakfast and a 1400 calorie lunch (2200 caloric goal) so I eat twice today my point is it all comes down to calories once your minimum Macros are met

THE_CLOCK

So, lunch is your last meal until the following breakfast?

distinctlybeautiful

I usually eat more smaller meals. Partly I do this because I tend to get full quickly when I eat meals. It's just easier for me to eat less more often. I've lost six percent body fat so far eating that way, so that thing about not burning fat because you're always eating.. that sounds like a myth to me.

Michael190lbs

THE_CLOCK wrote: »

So, lunch is your last meal until the following breakfast?

Yep I typically eat twice a day sometimes a small meal at night to get extra calories in from workingout

AnvilHead

Michael190lbs wrote: »

THE_CLOCK wrote: »

So, lunch is your last meal until the following breakfast?

Yep I typically eat twice a day sometimes a small meal at night to get extra calories in from workingout

Proves further that personal preference/satiety is the most important thing. I'd rather skip breakfast (or have a very light one) and eat a moderate lunch and larger dinner. I'd be starving in the evening if I ate breakfast, lunch and skipped dinner! I'm usually not terribly hungry in the morning, but always hungry at dinner time.

A bunch of little meals doesn't do it for me either - every one feels like just enough to be a tease and then I'm hungry all the time. I'd rather eat fewer, larger, more satiating meals.

Here's one study which shows that meal frequency had no effect upon weight loss: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985

tomatoey

AnvilHead wrote: »

Michael190lbs wrote: »

A bunch of little meals doesn't do it for me either - every one feels like just enough to be a tease and then I'm hungry all the time. I'd rather eat fewer, larger, more satiating meals.

+1 - also there's just more prep and washing up. Pain in the butt.

PikaKnight

usmcmp wrote: »

THE_CLOCK wrote: »

No medical issues concerning insulin. I was just reading some articles and am trying to figure it out. I eat 6 a day. Clean. But there are many who say that if you do not have a medical issue to eat 3 or 4 big meals. Mostly because of insulin spikes, avoid insulin desensitization, let the body use stored fat.....

usmcmp, you are ripped up, what do you do?

I eat when I'm hungry. Sometimes that is 3 meals, usually it's 5 to 8 "meals". Sometimes it's cake, sometimes it's chicken and vegetables, sometimes it's a snack cake. I hit appropriate macros and I lift 4 days per week. Some days it's lots of protein, fruits and vegetables. Some days there's significant amounts of sweets.

Agreed with where the above is going. Unless there is a medical reason, it's all preference. I have people on my FL that do 3 big meals, one guy who does 2 huge meals and sometimes a small 3rd, and others that eat more often.

I have reactive hypoglycemia issues so I'm "supposed" to eat every 2-3 hours...supposed to >.>

But since you don't have any medical issues, eat how many meals work best for you to achieve your goals.

riffraff2112

I've lost weight doing both. As I've gotten older I have settled on 4 'meals' and one snack. Just fits my natural breaks at work and my hunger patterns well.
I didn't really notice any differences in rate or ease of doing it.

steuartcj

Either way just saying "tests have shown", " not keeping up with the science", etc hold no more weight then advertising claims in magazines. Name the tests and science..

usmcmp

steuartcj wrote: »

Either way just saying "tests have shown", " not keeping up with the science", etc hold no more weight then advertising claims in magazines. Name the tests and science..

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196602172740703
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/24/4/465.long
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=846276&fileId=S0007114581000056
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383639?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7499636&fileId=S0007114509992984
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n5/full/0802616a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/?tool=pubmed
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/177255

Pollywog_la

I am one of those people with a medical reason. If you look at some of the literature for people with diabetes or insulin resistance, they are told to eat many small meals to reduce spikes form larger meals.
But I believe the opposing idea that it is better for such people to eat fewer meals, and to allow your body free time where nothing is causing any insulin spikes.
It works for me. My blood glucose was already normal, but it became even lower when I went to 2 meals in an 8 hour timeframe for the last month.

Years ago, when I ate more carbs, I did feel the need to snack between meals. Now that I eat less carbs, I rarely snack.

If you are losing weight and don't have other issues like insulin resistance, I think you should eat the amount of meals that works for you and keeps you satisfied. If you feel hungry a lot or are NOT losing weight, reducing meals (while consuming the same calories) might be something to try and see if it does anything for you.

robertw486

THE_CLOCK wrote: »

There are different opinions on the matter. 6 meals a day spaces out nutrients more evenly and keeps metabolism up. However, it supposedly weakens overall insulin response and since the body is constantly fed, the body has no need to burn fat for energy.

My question is this. What do you follow and what results have you seen. Have you tried both strategies? Which worked best?

If I go to 3 meals, do I just merge two meals together?

Eat when you want to eat. I generally rely on coffee in the AM, and sometimes a bagel or fruit bar. But it's not at all uncommon for me to eat 75% or greater of my calories starting at dinner time and then graving afterwards. On days I exercise hard, that can mean eating 2000+ calories after 5 PM. And I've done just fine with weight loss, as well as building muscle when I was trying to.

usmcmp wrote: »

steuartcj wrote: »

Either way just saying "tests have shown", " not keeping up with the science", etc hold no more weight then advertising claims in magazines. Name the tests and science..

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196602172740703
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/24/4/465.long
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=846276&fileId=S0007114581000056
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383639?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7499636&fileId=S0007114509992984
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n5/full/0802616a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/?tool=pubmed
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/177255

Not shocked that you have multiple sources at hand. And really interesting that you mention the possible metabolic increase after a fasted state. Though I wasn't aware of any science backing that, I have noticed that at some point in fasting my body seems to go into "want food now" mode, beyond just the hunger. As in if I eat after being fasted 12-16 hours and especially if I got a decent calorie burn exercise session in, the first things that hit my stomach trigger like a major attack on digestion or something. Not uncomfortable, but it's like the gremlins in the stomach were just waiting to pounce on prey.

usmcmp

robertw486 wrote: »

usmcmp wrote: »

steuartcj wrote: »

Either way just saying "tests have shown", " not keeping up with the science", etc hold no more weight then advertising claims in magazines. Name the tests and science..

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196602172740703
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/24/4/465.long
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=846276&fileId=S0007114581000056
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383639?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7499636&fileId=S0007114509992984
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v28/n5/full/0802616a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/?tool=pubmed
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/177255

Not shocked that you have multiple sources at hand. And really interesting that you mention the possible metabolic increase after a fasted state. Though I wasn't aware of any science backing that, I have noticed that at some point in fasting my body seems to go into "want food now" mode, beyond just the hunger. As in if I eat after being fasted 12-16 hours and especially if I got a decent calorie burn exercise session in, the first things that hit my stomach trigger like a major attack on digestion or something. Not uncomfortable, but it's like the gremlins in the stomach were just waiting to pounce on prey.

It's one of the "reasons" behind why Intermittent Fasting is suggested as a 16 hour fasting period. The metabolism didn't drop to below average levels until 72 hours in the fasted state. Whether that would be different for someone with a history of eating disorders I couldn't tell you.

ETA: I do want to note that further studies done on meal frequency showed improved blood work health markers in obese patients with a higher frequency intake versus one or two large meals. These people had borderline or unhealthy health markers. In a person with normal blood work readings there was no change.